From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60B706B005A for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n9FNsYCU022994 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:54:34 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279192AEA8D for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:54:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1E645DE54 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:54:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DBF1DB8051 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:54:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23E41DB8040 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:54:32 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:52:08 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] swap_info: swap_map of chars not shorts Message-Id: <20091016085208.6c6870cb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20091015114435.9470890a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:17:20 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:53:52 +0100 (BST) > > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > @@ -1175,6 +1175,12 @@ static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int typ > > > * If that's wrong, then we should worry more about > > > * exit_mmap() and do_munmap() cases described above: > > > * we might be resetting SWAP_MAP_MAX too early here. > > > + * > > > + * Yes, that's wrong: though very unlikely, swap count 0x7ffe > > > + * could surely occur if pid_max raised from PID_MAX_DEFAULT; > > > > Just a nitpick. > > > > Hmm, logically, our MAX COUNT is 0x7e after this patch. Then, how about not > > mentioning to 0x7ffe and PID_MAX ? as.. > > > > Yes, that's wrong: we now use SWAP_MAP_MAX as 0x7e, very easy to overflow. > > next patch will... > > Perhaps we're reading it differently: I was there inserting a comment > on what was already said above (with no wish to change that existing > comment), then going on (immediately below) to mention how this patch > is now lowering SWAP_MAP_MAX to 0x7e, making the situation even worse, > but no worries because the next patch fixes it. > yes. > If you are seeing a nit there, I'm afraid it's one too small for my > eye! I don't think it's very troublesome, but in these days, people seems to love "bisect", Then, comments for change and comments for code should be divided, IMHO. > And the lifetime of this comment, in Linus's git history, will > be (I'm guessing) a fraction of a second - becoming a non-issue, it > rightly gets deleted in the next patch. ya, thanks. Regards, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org